Laid-Off Americans, Required to Zip Lips on Way Out, Grow Bolder

[Machismo]

I love how you believe that people means big businesses...

What you support is multi-billion dollar corps having their way without penalty to the detriment of the individual.
That's history, and every regulation that restricts a businesses' "freedom" to fuck over the country has dead bodies to show why such regulations were needed to begin with. To protect people.
So spare us the bullshit buzzwords. They have no meaning.

What I support, is everyone being able to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. And yes, that also includes any business.

Who is actually harmed if a business chooses to hire someone else for cheaper? Not a god damned person. Otherwise, that's like saying you are harming a fancy restaurant by eating at McDonald's. No, you are simply choosing a different option, end of story. Should we be forced to shop at a locally-owned, small business instead of Wal-Mart? After all, you want to protect people, right?

[Pangean]

What I support, is everyone being able to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. And yes, that also includes any business.

Who is actually harmed if a business chooses to hire someone else for cheaper? Not a god damned person. Otherwise, that's like saying you are harming a fancy restaurant by eating at McDonald's. No, you are simply choosing a different option, end of story. Should we be forced to shop at a locally-owned, small business instead of Wal-Mart? After all, you want to protect people, right?

Who is hurt? The person who no longer had a job or benefits and such reduces their purchases to the stores in the area.. The school system that sees it's tax base shrunk as a result of the layoffs. The municipality that also sees it's tax base shrink resulting in reduced services to the community including fire and police. The economy as yet another middle class job is removed. Now I get you don't care about that, because the bottom line all you really care about is the company. You could give a shit about the real harm these actions cause to real people and would rather spew forth about your fantasy's that ignore the real world.

[Poopymonster]

Who is hurt? The person who no longer had a job or benefits and such reduces their purchases to the stores in the area.. The school system that sees it's tax base shrunk as a result of the layoffs. The municipality that also sees it's tax base shrink resulting in reduced services to the community including fire and police. The economy as yet another middle class job is removed. Now I get you don't care about that, because the bottom line all you really care about is the company. You could give a shit about the real harm these actions cause to real people and would rather spew forth about your fantasy's that ignore the real world.

Let me see if I can get his tone right...Freedom freedom. My version of freedom. I'm willing to enforce my view of Freedom because Freedoms Freedom. My Freedom > Your freedom. Because Freedom.

[Pangean]

Let me see if I can get his tone right...Freedom freedom. My version of freedom. I'm willing to enforce my view of Freedom because Freedoms Freedom. My Freedom > Your freedom. Because Freedom.

Lol Pretty much.

[Machismo]

Who is hurt? The person who no longer had a job or benefits and such reduces their purchases to the stores in the area.. The school system that sees it's tax base shrunk as a result of the layoffs. The municipality that also sees it's tax base shrink resulting in reduced services to the community including fire and police. The economy as yet another middle class job is removed. Now I get you don't care about that, because the bottom line all you really care about is the company. You could give a shit about the real harm these actions cause to real people and would rather spew forth about your fantasy's that ignore the real world.

So that means no business should ever be able to fire someone... because... reasons.

[Pangean]

So that means no business should ever be able to fire someone... because... reasons.

I said that did I? You simply ignored the harm you said didn't exist and created a strawman. Golf clap.

[Kellhound]

You want to create a law, may as well get rid of others, right? After all, you want to protect America... so we should totally do it.

Laws are nothing more than one group of people trying to force their beliefs onto everyone, as you have clearly demonstrated.

- - - Updated - - -



My world view is based on supporting freedom, it's a pretty simple concept. People should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others.

Government is bad when it restricts a victimless action. In that moment, it is no longer a protector of freedom, but has become the oppressor.

Untempered freedom is a dangerous thing, even the Founding Fathers made laws.

Off-shoring jobs is not victimless.

- - - Updated - - -

I support freedom, it really is that simple. You have no problem trying to force your beliefs onto others, but I have no doubt you would be one of the first to whine when someone did the same to you.

- - - Updated - - -



Freedom is simple, it's a shame so many people seem to detest such a simple concept. What boggles my mind, is why people seem to have such an aversion to such a noble concept.

Yet you have no issue forcing your view onto others.....

[Acidbaron]

Why would people vote for a person guilty of doing just that in his own enterprise?

[Wildtree]

Actually it is the employees that apply for a visa. The paperwork for the incoming individual and the company are separate but that process is initiated by an individual, though the company then files a petition after the individual has filed.

What I meant, and I was probably unclear here.
You, the worker get an H1B visa. But in order to get that, you have to have an employer who's willing to hire you has to do his part first.

From the link I posted:

Hiring Nonresident Workers

Employers who want to hire someone who lives outside the US for permanent work, must file Form I-140, Petition for Alien Worker, and may also have to complete a labor certification request (ETA 750) from the US Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration's Division of Foreign Labor Certification.

Employers must file an I-129 petition to hire foreign workers for temporary -- though not seasonal -- services or labor, or receive training.

And since you have to have the employer already when you apply, they have to go first. That's what I meant.

[Machismo]

I said that did I? You simply ignored the harm you said didn't exist and created a strawman. Golf clap.

I didn't ignore harm, I merely pointed out how ridiculous it is to claim harm. I then proceeded to use your definition of harm to show how ridiculous it would be to apply to other things.

- - - Updated - - -

Untempered freedom is a dangerous thing, even the Founding Fathers made laws.

Off-shoring jobs is not victimless.

- - - Updated - - -



Yet you have no issue forcing your view onto others.....

Our founding fathers were also breaking the laws. The existence of a law is not a justification for it. And what did our founding fathers do as soon as they took power? They proceeded to oppress others. They never wanted freedom, they simply wanted to be the one's in power.

How am I forcing my view onto anyone? Do I have a gun to anyone's head? Have I used the government to force people to do as I wish?

[Kellhound]

I didn't ignore harm, I merely pointed out how ridiculous it is to claim harm. I then proceeded to use your definition of harm to show how ridiculous it would be to apply to other things.

- - - Updated - - -



Our founding fathers were also breaking the laws. The existence of a law is not a justification for it. And what did our founding fathers do as soon as they took power? They proceeded to oppress others. They never wanted freedom, they simply wanted to be the one's in power.

How am I forcing my view onto anyone? Do I have a gun to anyone's head? Have I used the government to force people to do as I wish?

You want utter total ruin and the suppression of freedom, because that is exactly what unchecked "freedom" leads to. One persons freedoms generally comes at the cost of another's, it is a zero sum game. Balance is always required.

[Pangean]

I didn't ignore harm, I merely pointed out how ridiculous it is to claim harm. I then proceeded to use your definition of harm to show how ridiculous it would be to apply to other things.

This was you pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim harm?: "So that means no business should ever be able to fire someone... because... reasons."

It's you ignoring the harm done and responding with a strawman. Like I said. An empty response from someone with an empty philosophy.

[Dsc]

Companies should be fined $100,000 for each H1B they use, $1,00,000 if it is used to replace a laid-off American worker.

simple solution. END H1Bs

[Machismo]

You want utter total ruin and the suppression of freedom, because that is exactly what unchecked "freedom" leads to. One persons freedoms generally comes at the cost of another's, it is a zero sum game. Balance is always required.

Actually, I want quite the opposite. The most possible freedom attainable, is to only restrict an action which creates a victim. As soon as you go past that, you have restricted the maximum possible freedom.

Now, if you are to argue that firing an employee is harm, then why not make it illegal to fire all employees? Of course, you would also have to make it illegal to quit from a job, since that would clearly "harm" the business. Let's not forget, we would also be forced to buy certain products, or the companies selling them would also be "harmed."

Or, people could be free to buy what they want, work where they want, and employ whomever they want.

[Kellhound]

simple solution. END H1Bs

They have some viable purposes.

[Machismo]

This was you pointing out how ridiculous it is to claim harm?: "So that means no business should ever be able to fire someone... because... reasons."

It's you ignoring the harm done and responding with a strawman. Like I said. An empty response from someone with an empty philosophy.

If it causes harm to fire someone, then no company should be allowed to fire people. Likewise, no employee should be allowed to quite... other wise they would be causing harm in your eyes. Should we also apply that same logic to all relationships? Let's make it illegal to break up with someone, because in your mind, that person is clearly being harmed by such a decision.

[Kellhound]

Actually, I want quite the opposite. The most possible freedom attainable, is to only restrict an action which creates a victim. As soon as you go past that, you have restricted the maximum possible freedom.

Now, if you are to argue that firing an employee is harm, then why not make it illegal to fire all employees? Of course, you would also have to make it illegal to quit from a job, since that would clearly "harm" the business. Let's not forget, we would also be forced to buy certain products, or the companies selling them would also be "harmed."

Or, people could be free to buy what they want, work where they want, and employ whomever they want.

What you are doing is setting a personal bar for what constitutes "harm" to justify your view, you are doing nothing more than hand-waving harms you dont care about away.

[Dsc]

They have some viable purposes.

Such as?

.

[Kellhound]

Such as?

.

There are times when there are not people available with the skill sets required for a job inside the US.

[Dsc]

There are times when there are not people available with the skill sets required for a job inside the US.

Unless you are speaking of Operation Paperclip, I can't think of a single one. Sure they may COST MORE, but name one.